NEW MEANINGS

Lance Tapley’s article entitled, “More terrorist casualties? The political far left may commit suicide, too” was thoughtful and well-presented. Congratulations. Our “post-terrorist-attack America” is a complex place, with many huge pitfalls to clear thinking. The meanings of many religious and patriotic gestures — flag-waving, public religious displays, prayer vigils, even wearing ribbons, etc. — have changed recently and no longer mean the same things, to the left or to the right, that we’ve come to expect. Let’s concede the tragedy (and villainy) of the terrorists’ act without giving up our resolute critique of the American culture of consumerism and capitalism, and the right. Conceding more would, indeed, magnify the tragedy.

Jay C. Davis

Portland, ME

OUT OF CONTEXT

I have just read your reporter Lance Tapley’s article “More Terrorist Casualties.” I gave permission for my letter to be quoted by him in his article as long as it was not out of context. I read the excerpt which he took from it, and I must say I question his idea of what is “in context.” He uses an excerpt from my letter to back up his idea that the agenda of the “activist left” has been to blame the US for the attacks, and that the left’s main focus in response to the September 11 attacks has been one of anti-government, anti-Americanism. Here is what he included in his article:

“Alienation among this group has become enormous. ‘I don’t love the institution that is the United States of America. It has caused too much harm, too much hate, too much oppression to those throughout the world and within its borders for me to be able to perceive it as an entity to care about,’ wrote Hillary, a participant in the New Chautauqua, on the Maine Global Action Networks Internet space.”

Now please take the time to read fully what I wrote:

“My life, my outlook on life, has changed from this all. The scale of this all is so hard to comprehend. And when I say that I am so deeply saddened and hurt and feel for the people affected by these attacks I truly mean it to my core. But when others are speaking loudly and acting aggressively in ways that I see can only make the situation far far worse, I cannot only stand aside and mourn and be silent. I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t think I had made some effort to prevent the greater harms that I see would and are being planned, and will take effect if all ONLY mourn and rally behind their nation and its leaders. I will be honest — I care far more for people than I do for any nation (any government.) I love Americans. I don’t love the institution that is the United States of America. It has caused too much harm, too much hate, too much oppression to those throughout the world and in its borders for me to be able to perceive it as an entity to care about. But I greatly care about those living in this country and giving this country its beauty and life, and I see fighting the injustices of this and any government or groups of people who take power over others, as being a key part in honoring the people of this country and this world.”

Despite what Lance may want the world to think, we “dissidents” do have hearts and truly love our country and its people. But loving one’s country and its people and its founding ideals and its amazing energy does not require one to love one’s government and ruling institutions. Indeed, this country was built on questioning those institutions. Even terrible crises in one’s nation should not cause one to forget that this current government has anything but clean hands. This is NOT blaming America. This is loving America, and not wanting the things that one loves about the country destroyed by hate, fear, power trips, scapegoating and rash actions.

Hillary Lister

Waterville, ME

FINE ANALYSIS

I commend the Phoenix for publishing Lance Tapley’s fine analysis piece, “More Terrorist Casualties?” For the most part, the mainstream media’s coverage of Maine’s leftist/progressive reaction to Sept. 11 has consisted of drive-by photos of anti-war activists and their signs. The left’s actual rhetoric, when held up to scrutiny, is quite frankly disappointing and self-destructive. Maine Green Party Founder John Rensenbrink correctly characterized some of the statements at the Unity convention as “. . . ritualistic hatred and disparagement of America. . .”

The left has an annoying habit of embracing bombastic rhetoric, only to play the First Amendment victim card when held accountable for extreme remarks intended to inflame passions. The lives of 6000 beings were snuffed out by religious zealots whose stated objective is the establishment of a 12th century world order that oppresses dissent, dehumanizes women, and condones the slaughter of those who practice other religions. Unfortunately, to many on the left the Sept. 11 tragedy seems little more than an opportunistic moment to bash corporations, question the legitimacy of the 2000 presidential election, and refight US policy in Southeast Asia, Central America, and the Persian Gulf. Those who lack the decency to mourn the dead, or exhibit even a rudimentary concern for American military personnel sent into harm’s way, leave themselves open to charges of being misguided and disloyal. Tapley’s reporting conveyed that danger.

John S. Day

Former Bangor Daily News Washington Correspondent

Coplin Plantation, ME

POSER

If Lance Tapley, as he claims in his silly slam on leftists and the New Chautauqua in the Phoenix (October 5-11 ) represents the “alternative press” then the state of the media in this country is in far deeper trouble than any of us thought.

Lance is mad that many people are looking for historical and cultural reasons behind the terrorist acts in New York and Washington. He would rather that everyone mourn the victims without any intellectual effort to find out why the perpetrators hate us so much. Apparently he does not think that international law, as advocated by the Greens, ought to be the criteria used to bring about justice for the victims. I gather he prefers simple vengeance.

Poor Lance. He likes to pretend he’s a Green but he’s really just an enigma.

Nancy Allen

Brooksville, ME

REINCARNATION OF ROME

I didn’t attend the Chautauqua, so I can’t be sure that what you wrote was accurate, but thank you for an alarming picture of a promising movement that may be headed for disaster.

I never was much of an activist in the ‘60s, more of an onlooker, but I remember SDS and the New Left self-destructing this way. Eventually the American working class was seen as the enemy of the leftwing anti-war movement, and the Weathermen started making plans to attack ordinary Americans instead of uniting with them, and the whole movement went down the tubes.

I think we live in a reincarnation of the Roman Empire and hate many aspects of it, especially the endless wars. But leftists and progressives can never change that empire by setting ourselves against the ideas and emotions of 90 percent of its people.

I think it was Marx who said that for any class to become a “ruling class,” it has to represent or pretend to represent the interests of the whole society. I know that Mao wrote that for the Chinese revolution to succeed, it had to speak with a “Chinese accent” in a way that the vast majority of the Chinese people would find attractive.

I hope the anti-globalization movement will think about this, and not set itself against the interests of our whole society while speaking in foreign accents that Americans find threatening and unintelligible. SDS and the Weathermen proved just what a recipe this is for disaster.

Andy Feeney

Washington, DC

APPALLING

As an American and former journalist, and as someone who attended the entire New Chautauqua, I was appalled by Lance Tapley’s article in the October 5-11 Portland Phoenix on both a personal and professional level, especially as it comes from someone involved in a political campaign. At Chautauqua, Tapley — who was invited as a speaker — was able to spew his “knowledge” of the press for 20 minutes, and then abruptly left. He offered no one the professional courtesy of informing those present that he was also writing about the event.

Maybe Tapley is questioning his own patriotism. He wrote, just a few months ago, for the Phoenix: “As a journalist and political activist, I’ve been to a lot of protests — anti-war protests in the ‘60s and ‘70s.”

The Vietnam War was wrong. Kissinger has said that, Nixon alluded to it, and it seems Tapley felt that way. Because the attacks of 9/11 happened on American soil, certainly people are going to go out and buy flags and wrap themselves tightly in it for protection. Security is what we all want. We must turn that fear, not into anger and calls for the destruction of states, but into solving the problems.

How long until we forget the struggles of Labor, Margaret Chase Smith vs. McCarthyism, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King. Were these people wrong to oppose an oppressive government? It is not unpatriotic to question government, in fact it is our patriotic DUTY to question our government whether we are popular or not. A few lone voices rallied more to the cause of racial equality. McCarthy almost got away with the destruction of TRUE American values but was stopped when the tiny murmurs became trumpets of freedom.

It should be taught that civil disobedience was embraced by our founding fathers as a means of releasing America from the grips of an oppressive England. We must teach our children to not fear speaking out, to not fear being unpopular when they feel things are not right. If the American government becomes the oppressor of its own people — and of the world — it must be told so by Americans.

Congress must wake up to Bush’s attacks on civil liberties (which should be seen as attacks on American values and on Americans themselves) and to his bail-out of mega corporations. The airlines fought tooth and nail for sub-standard security. Should the CEO’s of these corporations not be awaiting trial for the deaths of 6000 Americans? No, they received $20 billion for their greed. That’s not America, that’s Corporate America, and we must say no to its addiction to taxpayer’s money and to their wanton disregard for people’s lives.

We must punish those responsible for the attacks of 9/11, but not at the expense of American liberties and more innocent lives, otherwise the attackers will have won.

Timothy M. Sullivan

Rockport, ME

ENLIGHTENING STUFF

I just read “More terrorist casualties” in the October 5-11 issue of the Portland Phoenix. I want to thank you for clarifying things that have been very painful for me to understand. Although I dropped out of active politics 30 years ago in order to pursue Enlightenment, I still retained a liberal leaning perspective when it came to viewing most issues.

Your explanation of how the left may alienate itself in light of the Sept. 11 bombings gave me real insight. I had some of the same distrustful feelings when I watched the bombings on TV. For example, was this a way for the right to take complete control? But when I thought about the possibility that the right would kill Barbara Olsen to further their ends, it seemed ridiculous. Also, I felt that we as Americans could be more aware of what our government does in our name, but, I do not think most Americans have malice toward the rest of the World. However, holding on to my left-wing views, has deprived me, in some fashion, the ability to join the country in grief. I don’t believe in strong nationalism, I don’t believe in revenge. I am not sure I am a pacifist because I don’t know what I would do in the face of Hitler. These issues are more complex than what either Bush expounds or the rhetoric from the left. You are the only writer who makes sense out of these complex issues, and who has a very clear take on the left.

Cathy Weiss-Boucher

Lewiston

STRICTLY MAINSTREAM

Near the end of Lance Tapley’s piece on the New Chautauqua event, after an extended diatribe against its perceived flaws, he suggests that he is in agreement with the substance of most of the objections that were expressed there to US policies leading up to September 11. His objections to the Chautauqua appear to be based entirely on style, and on the intensity of opinion rather than on its content.

He thinks that progressive anti-war opinions should not be too strong, too militant, too assertive. Activists should find an “acceptable” way to get the mainstream media to present their point of view.

So, if we are to measure the success of a message by its conformity to the standards of acceptable discourse, how will we know when it has succeeded? Has it hurt the conservative message to challenge the norms of political debate, or did George W. Bush become a “centrist” only after decades of right-wing radicals pushed the envelope of what is acceptable?

Tapley indulges in an excessive deference to the mainstream standard not only of style, but of language and ideas. It has not served him well, and it would weaken the anti-war and progressive message if it were to accept his criticism. To me, the promise of the New Chautauqua is in its challenge to the status quo in all these things. His point seems to be, “I agree with your point of view, just don’t talk about it.”

As a scholar named Gerald Massey wrote, “They must find it difficult, those who have accepted the authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.”

Roger Carpentter

Farmingdale, ME

 

BINSIGHTFUL

Lance Tapley’s article on the far left’s muddled response to the events of Sept. 11 was insightful and important. He’s correct that the left has an enormous opportunity, while people are really tuned in, to help them understand the complexities and the failures surrounding US policy in the Middle East, policies that may indeed be at the root of unrest in the Islamic world. But by seeming cold or indifferent to the tragedy of Sept. 11, or worse, blaming America itself for an act of sheer madness, the left won’t win many converts. I was wondering when someone would draw the comparison between what the far left is saying about the terror attack and what Jerry Falwell had to say — both believe it’s all America’s fault. They are treating their country like a victim of rape (Were we “dressed too provocatively?” Were we “asking for it?”)

There may be plenty of things wrong with America and its foreign policy. But that is no justification for the violent, horrible acts of Sept. 11. Tapley is right: the left can play an important role in the wake of the attacks.

But who will hear it if it sounds like anti-American rhetoric? Loving your country doesn’t mean you have to wave the flag, but you should at least be willing to understand — and even stand beside — those who do.

Dennis Bailey

Portland, ME

ONE-SIDED

Lance Tapley’s piece lamenting the Chautauqua in Unity, Maine the weekend of the Common Ground Fair missed an opportunity, and it saddens me. When he interviewed me for the article, I thought that he wanted to present a constructive critique. I was wrong. Instead, he delivered a one-sided and acrimonious attack, characterizing the Chautauqua at the start of his article as being dominated by “anger, paranoia, hatred, and alienation.”

That is not an accurate characterization. I attended the Friday night event and the Saturday morning workshops. Yes, there was, I thought, a measure of what he describes as ritualized put-down using absolutist language, of the US Government, of the media, and of the corporations. But that was only part of it and was balanced by searching questions, serious probing of all sides of the September 11 debacle, and wonderful moments of healing, constructive critique. And thus, in that context of give and take discussion, the effect of the whole was not one of “anger, paranoia, hatred, and alienation.” In fact the spirit was very positive.

As many who attended the Sunday culmination have told me, the meeting ended on a high note. The outcome was a decision to repeat the Chautauqua next year (and in subsequent years, too), and to form a communication network among all the many groups that participated. It was, as the Bangor Daily News described it in a headline, a rousing populist event. Much credit goes to David Kubiak for his stellar work as the principal and indefatigable organizer. It is typical of Tapley’s article that it did not even mention him, even though it was Kubiak who invited Tapley to take part in the media workshop.

The article attacks Nancy Allen and with an edge of acrimony that I found disgraceful. She and I have a long history of action together. I deeply respect her and for the good reason that she is on the cutting edge of issue after issue; and is a dedicated and highly competent media coordinator for the Green Party. She and I have had our share of disagreements, but we have always worked through them. Tapley’s treatment of her in the article is especially obnoxious to me. I am quoted by him in a manner that suggests that I support his one-sided and reactive views on the Chautauqua, including his attack on Nancy. I publicly dissociate myself from any such imputation.

Tapley is right that the critical/radical left does tend to marginalize itself. It does fall on its face again and again. I believe much of it is due to the absence of real engagement in the political process. By real I mean engaging in the political fiüld with the full awareness that the critical question to be asked is: In this situation, given this context, what would I/we do if we were in power? Seems logical doesn’t it? But that’s not what we get from much of the critical/radical left. Instead we get lofty declarations of the need for perpetual peace interspersed with yelling at the bullies that are in power. You figure it out, dear reader. Do you think that’s effective? Or does it just help otherwise intelligent people to feel good? As I look ýt the behavior of the critical/radical left I see a wholesale running away from serious political commitment. Today that commitment must be to the building of a genuine, credible political party. When you do that, as I am doing together with scores of thousands of Greens in our country, and of millions around the world, then you start asking real questions, questions rooted in being willing to take responsibility and to do what needs doing. I am sorry that Tapley’s reactive article makes our work even more difficult.

John Rensenbrink

Topsham, ME

TAPLEY RESPONDS

It’s healthy to have a debate over the future of the activist left wing and of the Green wing of American politics, given the new national and world scene. I appreciate very much the positive letters. As for the negative:

Hillary Lister accuses me of taking her remarks out of context. The context was: “Alienation from the government among this group has become enormous.” I used the quote from her to illustrate that. I wasn’t making the point that she didn’t like Americans.

Nancy Allen says that I am mad that people are looking for deep reasons behind the terrorist attacks. But I devoted a sizable section of the article to how the left has much to teach in that regard. She also claims that I prefer “simple vengeance” as America’s response to the attacks. In the article I didn’t say what I personally felt America’s response should be. I did note that most Americans understand the need to eliminate the specific source of the terror we have seen and to do it soon before there are more attacks. In fact, that is how I feel. Not vengeance, but appropriate retaliation and self-defense. And I believe that terrorism generally has to be suppressed.

Timothy Sullivan is inaccurate about my attendance at the New Chautauqua. I was at the morning panel for more than an hour and at the afternoon panel for its entirety. I attended in their entirety the Friday and Saturday night plenary sessions and conducted numerous interviews. I always identified myself, or was clearly identified, as a journalist.

Contrary to Sullivan’s claim, I have no problem with dissent. I have a long, public record of dissent. One might even say that the article was a dissent from a certain orthodoxy. I just think the activist left’s anti-war dissent now is knee-jerk, wrong, and political suicide. In his letter, Sullivan neatly illustrates my point about extremist rhetoric. “Should the CEO’s of these [airline] corporations not be awaiting trial for the deaths of 6000 Americans?” he asks.

Roger Carpentter is mistaken when he says that I am in agreement with the substance of the comments expressed at the New Chautauqua. Again, I wrote that the left has much to teach about why the US is hated in the Middle East, but I am not a pacifist, and I am not opposed to what the US military is doing now.

As for John Rensenbrink’s letter, I certainly can’t quarrel with his remarks repeating what I have him saying in the article. But I strongly quarrel with his words suggesting that I partly misrepresented him. After I had written up what he had said at a media panel, I called him and went over carefully with him what he said, and he added to it. He may now regret criticizing national Green press coordinator Nancy Allen, but he did it vigorously. “Why is she doing that?” he also said, in exasperation, about her Internet commentaries. There is more. I take very complete notes.

This debate reveals, as I believe my article did, that the future of the activist left and of the Green Party — which is much broader than the left — is at stake.

---